Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Liberalism's Spending Problem: A House Built on Sand

The dogmas of modern liberalism rely on socialist ideals that use taxes and borrowed money in order to "pay" for social programs. (I put the word pay in quotes, since nearly every social program invented by the US costs more than it produces.) The results of such spending are liberal structures that cannot stand on their own unless propped up with more and more taxes. These structures, in turn, create dependency on government as more and more services that used to be provided by the private sector are taken over by government. The end result is a statist government that has the power to enslave its people, neatly wrapped up in the bonds of "social welfare."

To see how the dogma of spending works, here's an analogy:

Let's say we want to build a house. To start that project, a modern conservative would look for proven technologies to construct it, relying on past experience to guide the design based on proven principles. The conservative would get cost estimates and begin construction only when the project could be fully funded.

On the other hand, a modern liberal would start with the most innovative and forward looking architectural plans he could find, with no regard to the architect's past abilities, to sound construction principles, or especially to the costs. Estimates on the costs would not really matter, since the principle concern is on the "progressive" design, rather than based on any pragmatic values.

The conservative builds his house so that it provides the basic necessities: it protects from the weather, it is utilitarian, and it will last a long time. The modern liberal, however, takes one look at the conservative's house and laughs at how ugly and backwards it looks. "Your house isn't friendly, it doesn't feel good, and it doesn't even allow wheelchair access."

The modern liberal's house, from the outset, runs into cost overruns because of its poor design. "That's OK," reasons the liberal. "All we need is to put a some more money into it and it will work." Then, because the architect paid no attention to past designs, the foundation of the house doesn't support the walls. "That's OK," says the liberal. "The idea is a good one. We'll just keep putting more money into improving the walls so they'll stand up without a foundation." Then, the roof leaks and doesn't cover the whole house. "That's OK. We'll just keep adding more layers of roof on top until we cover everything."

Under the weight of a top-heavy structure, the liberal's house becomes unstable and crashes to the ground.

What does this have to do with government? The allusion to spending should be obvious enough, along with the idea of continuing to pump money into the house in the hopes that somehow the structure will improve. The lie that liberals tell themselves is that progressive thought is far better than retrogressive thought (or as liberals would put it, "regressive"). Then, when progressive thought doesn't achieve the desired results because of basic, structural flaws, liberals always blame not having spent enough money.

Here are some examples of flawed liberal programs. See if you recognize a few of these:
Progressive teaching means looking at how many dollars are spent for each child. As long as the dollar per child ratio is high, the education process must be working. If a student performs poorly, the implication is that the school didn't spend enough money per child to create success. 
Progressive welfare means making sure welfare recipients have enough money to be able to live comfortable lives. There is no relation, in progressive welfare theory, between unemployment and welfare handouts. 
Progressive laws create programs to try and solve social problems. If a city contains too many drug dealers and prostitutes, the city needs only to spend more money to improve itself and to improve the lives of those who live there. 
If teen pregnancy grows, progressive laws spend money on education programs and abortion outlets. Teen pregnancy isn't seen as the problem. Lack of sufficient funding is.
All of these examples contain the core of the problem with liberal dogma - government spending makes people's lives better. While that may be true in certain circumstances, with certain individuals (usually those who are politically connected with the left), no amount of government spending can salvage structures with bad foundations.

Liberal dogma is like a foolish man, who built his house on sand, and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house. And it fell, and great was the fall of it.

Monday, April 28, 2014

It Doesn't Make a Lick of Sense

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. One of those things that doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

I started blogging in October, 2008 when Proposition 102 came up for a vote in Arizona. Prop 102 was Arizona's version of a constitutional marriage amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. At that time, I started campaigning on behalf of the proposition and found...anger, hatred, bigotry, intolerance, name-calling, threats, lies, stealing, cheating, vandalism, vitriolic anti-religion, loud demonstrations and in general, a dark fog of hatred directed at marriage proponents and at me just because I dared to support what I consider a fundamental institution of society. I immediately realized the hypocrisy of the people who campaigned against Prop 102 in the name of tolerance and love, yet having none for anyone who disagreed with them.

The lack of civility among those opposed to marriage surprised me. Subsequently, I got annoyed with the opposition. When I got annoyed, I also got determined to continue to support that most basic of social institutions: marriage and the core family. Since then, I've broadened my scope from protecting marriage to include taking a stand on behalf of the US Constitution and on behalf of the foundational principles of the United States.

In 2008, I started studying modern liberalism and gay activism. I took a good look at the statist agenda and the reconstruction of society in the state's image. I read liberal and conservative treatises. And I put clearer thoughts to the alarming academic trends I had experienced for more than 20 years. In sum, the more I studied, the more connections I found between modern liberalism and the inconsistencies of modern statist ideologies.

It is these inconsistencies that stick in my brain - how people can believe liberalism wholesale yet not retain any connection with common sense. In defining the modern problem, some observers point to disappearing morals and values. Some point to liberal indoctrination through the school systems, some to lack of good parenting, others to cultural or moral relativism. Whatever the reason for liberalism's double standard...

It Doesn't Make a Lick of Sense

Here are a bunch of observations about modern ideals that I've gathered over the past year. None of them make a lick of sense.

Student Indignation
I don't tolerate plagiarism on assignments from my students. I make my policy clear - I don't give any credit for plagiarized work. I use an online plagiarism-identifying application to filter out assignments as I receive them. (The application is quite sophisticated.)

Despite my policy, every semester I receive a half-dozen essays or research projects that have copied sections from sources on the internet (usually from the bastion of all "correct" information - Wikipedia). Last semester I received two assignments with plagiarism scores above 90%, meaning that 90% of each assignment was copied verbatim from online sources. Per my policy, I didn't give any credit for those assignments and one student failed the class because of it.

This is not a story about plagiarism. It is rather a story about student responses to getting caught in the act of plagiarism.

One student in particular sticks out in my mind. She turned in an essay exam that was completely plagiarized from Wikipedia. (The article itself was mostly wrong.) I gave her no credit for the exam and cautioned her about her remaining work. Even so, she turned in a second plagiarized exam. Even before running it through the plagiarism-identifying application, when I opened the essay in my word processor, it still contained the hypertext links from Wikipedia embedded in it. Once again, I gave her no credit and, to her surprise, she failed my class.

What did she do after getting caught cheating twice? She called me at my office and accused me of being unfair. She insisted that she had not plagiarized her essays. She asked people she knew if they had ever heard about plagiarism-identifying software. They had not, so she refused to believe that I used such a thing or that it could actually identify plagiarism. She called me names. She complained to my department chair. She complained to the school counseling office.

When she found that I wouldn't give in to her harassment and give her a passing grade, she defamed me and my class to everyone she knew. (I suppose she was trying to hurt my future enrollment numbers.)

Here was a student who grew up in the liberalized, feel-good, touchy-feely, no child left behind school system. (She is, unfortunately, not a unique example.) Even when faced with the raw facts of her plagiarism, she could not accept that she was at fault in any way since schools and many families no longer teach anything like personal responsibility. Because I was the object in the way of her grades, she demonized me instead of taking responsibility for her own failures.

Her accusations and inability to face responsibility don't make a lick of sense.

Light Bulbs
You all know that last year, the law went into effect that required minimum standards of efficiency in light bulbs, which incandescent bulbs are no longer able to meet. This legislative mandate required light bulb manufacturers to switch to making CFL bulbs or LED bulbs, the only types that so far fit the energy saving mandate. This is supposed to help us "go green" by saving vast amounts of energy that our regular light bulbs apparently consume.

Yet China is the largest CFL manufacturer in the world, is the fastest growing industrial nation in the world, and also happens to be the largest polluting nation in the world. Also, as we've all been informed, CFLs contain toxic mercury vapor. (You are not supposed to throw CFLs away but instead need to take them to a hazardous waste disposal facility. If you break a bulb in your home, you are supposed to vacate the room for 15 minutes to allow the mercury to settle.)

This is the mainstream ideology of environmentalists, creating feel-good legislation that saves a little energy here to produce huge amounts of energy waste and pollution over there. To me, it doesn't make a lick of sense.

They Hate Us
A great deal of people in the US lay the blame of terrorism at the feet of George W. Bush. They do this because the mainstream media has told Americans that "news" nearly every day during the last seven years of his presidency. Of course if the media says it enough, it must be true, especially if it isn't.

When a foreign country's government comes along and says it hates the US, the first response of modern liberals is, "What have we done to make them hate us?" Yet when a person hates liberals for what they are doing to our country they conclude that person is a bigot, ignorant or evil.

Why do modern liberals think they can sit down and talk reasonably with the governments of North Korea, Iran, Venezuela or Cuba, yet cannot come to any reasonable compromise with conservatives or even Republicans?

To me, the split personality doesn't make a lick of sense.

Evil Oppressor
I've come to expect that every gay activist, every same sex marriage advocate, and every secularist will personally attack me for my belief that marriage should remain an institution between a man and a woman. I understand that they will call me a bigot, that they believe I have personally kept gays from every last fundamental right as human beings, and that I am, in short, the Great Evil Oppressor.

Yet these people are the ones who continue to spew epithets, filthy language, and indecencies at me, all in the name of tolerance and love. That is not the definition of tolerance and love that I was taught growing up.

I am reminded of the scene in The Princess Bride after the character Vezzini keeps uttering the word "inconceivable" time and again as the masked man chases after him to rescue Princess Buttercup. Finally, one of Vezzini's henchmen, Inigo Montoya says: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Gay activists: You keep using that word tolerance. I do not think it means what you think it means and what you think it means doesn't make a lick of sense.

Choice über Alles
You may have heard of the song, made infamous because of Nazi Germany, entitled Deutschland über Alles. Roughly translated, the first line says: "Germany, Germany above all, above all in the world.

I would never suggest that liberals' clinging to the ideal of women's choice and abortion was in any way related to Nazi Germany. Far be it from me to even hint at such a thing - especially in connection with Nazi eugenics. Even so, anti-life liberals cling to the ideal of reproductive choice with a zeal and enthusiasm that somehow reminds me of the song.

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles....

I find it strange that the same people who support aborting children for the sake of reproductive choice are also the same people who zealously oppose the death penalty or who zealously impose legislation that protects animal rights above those of human rights.

Abortion rights above all else doesn't make a lick of sense.

Freedom Versus Liberty
Statists have taken over the government, nearly at all levels. Statists grab government power in order to fix all human problems, to right all wrongs, to balance all imbalances, or to protect the underprivileged only to make them dependents on the state for all welfare. In the name of freedom from social or physical ills, statists take power and at the same time destroy liberty.

Here are a few examples that also relate to modern liberalism: I've participated in many discussion boards and comment areas on a variety of topics and on a variety of internet forums. If I express any beliefs in favor of marriage between a man and a woman, my comments universally get voted off the discussion or buried with negative votes. Why is that? My only conclusion has to be that freedom of speech only applies to certain individuals who agree with the modern statist position. This, of course, is not freedom of speech but suppression of any and all opposing opinion.

Marriage bloggers watched as the National Organization for Marriage videos got spammed off of the YouTube site or buried under an avalanche of negative comments. The NOM website has been spammed by thousands upon thousands of negative comments. Gay activists subscribe to NOM's email newsletter with the sole purpose of attempting to shut down the mailings entirely.

Here's a note written to the directors of NOM:
I've had hundreds of my gay-friends subscribe to your newsletter, only so that we can mark it as Spam once it shows up in our In-Box. Now, on Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, and Aol, your mailings automatically go into the Bulk or Spam folders of everyone across the USA. 
We will continue to support our efforts to destroy your mailings. 
I suppose the little smiley face makes it all right. It's not harmful. It's just a little joke.

What would be the result of suppressing opposing opinions? Anyone who's read and understood such novels as Orwell's 1984, or Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, or Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, can immediately see the danger.

Ironically, I've had people comment to me along these lines: "I don't agree with your views but I would die to defend your right to say them." This usually precedes the part where my comments get flagged as "inappropriate" and deleted from the discussion. I doubt anyone yet has died from defending my right to free speech.

I and several other conservative bloggers had our Facebook profiles systematically deleted from Facebook. Why? Ostensibly because I posted under a pseudonym, yet others, using real names were deleted as well. I can conclude that someone was desperately trying to silence our voices, to remove our liberties by exercising their freedoms.

The act of protecting free speech while at the same time supressing it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Nancy Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi just doesn't make a lick of sense.

Making Sense

Liberal, statist, and gay activist ideals don't make a lick of sense. Conservatives need to stand up for America's foundational principles. Teachers need to teach them in the classroom. Conservatives need to speak up in the media and especially make our voices heard in the new media. Liberalism needs to be questioned and yes, even ridiculed when it crosses the boundaries of common sense and moral sensibilities. We must carry the message of true liberty and justice for all, and be unafraid to voice our opinions. And when those opinions are suppressed, we must stand up again and again to be heard. Let us take back the liberties that are so freely destroyed before "we the people" becomes "I the Government."

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Pseudoephedrine and Gun Control

The blue line represents the weight of meth seized (x100g). The red line represents quantity of meth lab incidents.

I went to the store the other day to buy some Pseudoephed to help relieve the pressure in my sinuses. Those of you who've bought Pseudoephed know the procedure. In order to buy a box of Pseudoephed, I had to show my driver's license to the pharmacist, then sign my name on a form. The form basically stated that I was not buying Pseudoephed in order to make methamphedamine.

Methampedamine, or meth as it's commonly called, is a dangerous drug that can ruin people's lives. Pseudoephedrine, the common decongestant, contains a basic ingredient of meth, and has been abused by illegal drug manufacturers to produce meth.

The federal government put meth on its controlled substance list back in 1970, and has continued to try to control its manufacture and use over the decades. In 2005, the federal government, as part of renewing the Patriot Act, controlled the sale of pseudoephedrine as another attempt to limit meth production. It limited the amount of pseudoephedrine we could buy in a given period, and required pharmacies and drug stores to keep pseudoephedrine locked away to prevent theft.

After having to register my Pseudoephed (with a photo ID), I was curious to see how well the federal government was doing in controlling meth production. Take a look at the graph above. Since 2005, the federal government has attempted to control the production of meth by making law-abiding citizens register when buying pseudoephedrine-based decongestants. The blue line on the graph shows the amount of meth seized by the DEA over the years. The amount seized climbs more or less steadily until 1999, due to new meth production procedures. The Comprehensive Methamphedamine Control Act (MCA) brought a modest decline in 1996. Increased implementation of the MCA in 2002, brought a significant dip in meth seizures.

Yet since the federal government required mandatory registration of pseudoephedrine users (like you and me), the production of meth has increased sharply. In 2011, levels of meth seizures was back up to the "epidemic" amounts of 2004. Even though, as the red line shows, meth labs in the US have declined, meth continues to be produced and finds its way across the US.

What does this tell us about the government's ability to "control" meth? For starters, it tells us that the federal government can and does intrude in the lives of law-abiding citizens, in order to try to control illegal activities. While you and I have to register ourselves every time we want to get some relief using a pseudoephedrine-based decongestant, meth production and distribution has continued unabated.

Federal attempts to regulate meth have intruded into the lives of law-abiding citizens with little effect on the illegal drug trade.

Which brings me to gun control. The "crises" which have precipitated the rash of gun control legislation have exactly the same ideals and methods behind government's attempts to control meth. Every single bit of proposed legislation or proposed executive power has, at its root, the ideal of limiting or registering law-abiding citizens. Everyone knows, everyone except perhaps the Truly Converted Left, that such limitations do not work. Yet millions still petition the government to "do something" about gun violence, and so the government acts, by unconstitutionally limiting gun sales to regular citizens, or by creating registration schemes to identify legal gun owners.

Just as the government attempts to control meth in the US have shown, a federal registration of gun owners will not limit illegal activity. It will not reduce gun crimes and gun violence. The only thing it will do is limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. After all, look how well the federal government has controlled meth.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

The Courage to Stand Up for What Is Right, Part Two

Last week, I reported how proud I was of a group of high school choir students who walked out on an immoral and degrading concert number provided by the Lyric Opera at Arizona State University. You can read the original here.

Since then, the largest news agency in Arizona ran a "news" story about how ASU officials were "forced" to apologize to the parents of students who walked out on the show.

Predictably, the overwhelming reaction was to condemn the students for being "naive" and the parents for being "controlling."

I've included some choice remarks from the news comment section who apparently wish to promote lewd and immoral behavior. Keep in mind, however, the following:

1) The students didn't go see a production of RENT. They were at a state choir competition and were invited to see some of ASU's choirs perform.

2) The students who walked out (most of the audience) did so because they had the courage to stand up for what they believed was right and good. They chose not to watch the production from RENT because they didn't want to subject themselves to its vile message.

Now on to the comments:
It is ASU...they do all kinds of stuff like this on stage, they are big on art for social change. Lastly "pornagraphic"? Ha. Pa-lease. So you saw buttcheeck and someone dry humped a table...the same s**t happens in the Broadway versions. Welcome to the performing arts
Welcome to Lilly whiteville where everyone is pure in Gilbert... Lol 
That is ridiculous! Do your research kid!!! congrats to ASU for really opening up and showing us true art through this amazing play. 
What a joke! these kids have been doing worse things at school dances and sleep overs. Parents should have asked questions before sending there kids somewhere.
Besides the atrocious spelling, grammar, and mechanics, these comments are a small sample of the "outrage" over parents who complained to ASU for exposing their children to a song from a raunchy, lewd, and inappropriate Broadway musical.

Yes, we now have those who defend immorality as a public good and "edgy" theatre as a moral mandate.

I am still heartened by the students who walked out of the performance. Not all youth are as willing to wallow in the garbage heap of modern art.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

The Snarky Files: Week Ending April 19, 2014

The Snarky Files. Snarky has several definitions. I prefer "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

They Hate Me! They Really Hate Me! 
Let's start off with last week's recap by pointing out just how much liberal ideologues hate dissent, and by extension, the dissenters.

Take our Dear Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid for instance. (Please.) After Ranchgate in Nevada has died down, Reid got in his two cents worth by calling those who dared to stand up to federal agents as "domestic terrorists."

Keep in mind that just by labeling Americans who stand up to tyranny as terrorists, we can be arrested and held without charge indefinitely. This little-known fact is brought to you by the Patriot Act and the rejection of the Fourth Amendment by the current administration.

Close behind Reid (too close for comfort), Al Gore, the patron saint of climate change, called climate change skeptics "immoral, unethical, and despicable."

In the war of words, leave it to liberals to always show their maturity by arguing using ad hominem fallacies.

Here's a Video of Daffy Duck Saying "You're Despicable"

Screwy School Rules
We've seen how, over time, grade school and high school rules have made less and less sense. With zero tolerance rules, kids have been suspended for sucking on a cough drop to pointing their fingers in the shape of a gun.

This following case is the latest in bizarre school rules that punished the victim instead of the perp.

A sophomore at South Fayette High School in McDonald, Pennsylvania, who suffered bullying for a year, and has ADHD, finally got fed up with the bullies. He decided to record them on vide. They taunted him while he was getting help from his teacher. One student said, "You should pull his pants down!" Another student replied, "No, man. Imagine how bad that (c**t) smells! No one wants to smell that (t**t)." Then, a loud noise is heard—the sound of book being slammed down next to the bullied student after a student feigned hitting him in the head with it. Laughter followed.

The child's mother submitted the video to school administrators, hoping against hope that they would do something about the bullying.

They did. The school principal called the police and the bully victim was investigated on charges of felony wiretapping then charged with disorderly conduct. Seriously. Felony wiretapping and disorderly conduct.

The child was taken out of his special education math class, while the bullies remained.

We should never wonder why our school system is failing us.

Scary Numbers
The US Census Bureau has posted its 2012 count of private-sector workers. The total number was counted as 86,429,000. 

The US Census Bureau also posted the number of people who work full time for the US government, who are on government welfare, or who receive benefits from one or more programs. The total number (minus those receiving veteran benefits) comes to 147,802,000 people.

That's a 1.7 to 1 ratio of people who receive government benefits or are full-time employees of the federal government versus private-sector workers. And that was in 2012, before Obamacare kicked in.

How long will we be able to sustain the private sector when the have nots take all that the haves make?

Oh That Silly IRS!
New emails released this week show that, not only did the IRS unfairly target conservative groups when they applied for tax exempt status, but the head of the department at the time, Lois Lerner, contacted the Department of Justice to see if she could somehow criminally prosecute those groups.

Yes, she wanted to prosecute them for being politically active.

No Pain No Gain
It looks like we'll all be starting those diets we've all been threatening to begin. We may not have any choice as food prices continue to inflate, even as all the news media celebrates how much our economy has recovered.

Here's a Scary Graph of Soaring Meat Prices

Feds Looking for "Domestic" Terrorists
FBI agents in South Carolina have been visiting gun shops looking for potential domestic terrorists. On their list are people who pay for guns with cash, or buy "long guns," or make other "suspicious" purchases.

Life is just getting weirder and scarier here in the good old US of A.

Here's a Cartoon of the Direction We're Headed in Politics

The Weirdest Thing I've Seen in a Long Time - Pope Nancy
As if Nancy Pelosi isn't strange enough, she spent time this past week assisting Bishop Marc Andrus wash the feet of two children at Saint John the Evangelist Episcopal Church in San Francisco.

I cannot believe that St. Nancy suddenly found religion or found a conscience. I can only conclude that nothing is sacred as long as the holy doctrine of liberal politics is served.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Liberalism's Peculiar Institutions

Liberalism born out of the 1950s and 1960s used to protest against the "Establishment" or the status quo of government. Now that liberalism is the Establishment, just what is the point of liberalism? What's left for liberals but the empty shell of a broken system?

Before the US Civil War, Southern Democrats used to refer to slavery as "our peculiar institution." Peculiar in this case means "one's own," referring to a distinctive trait among the Southerners. Slave owners, seeing no moral ambiguity in their institution, held on to it as necessary and integral to the South's self-definition. Despite the moral imperatives from the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, Southern Democrats clung to its peculiar institution. Slave holders defended it against all argument and moral objection.

We can all agree that chattel slavery is an immoral institution, despite those yesteryear slave holders who defended their "rights" to buy and sell humans as property. Every bit as connected, and stemming from the moral failure of the South's peculiar institution, is the deep rooted and pernicious institution of racism. We as Americans have made progress in the dialog of race, yet racism remains.

Modern liberalism, born out of the 1950s and the 1960s, has its own, definitive, peculiar institutions. To a moral society, these peculiar liberal institutions lack the moral backing that slavery lacked more than 150 years ago. Social conservatives denounce these modern and peculiar institutions of liberalism with the same moral outrage as the abolitionists of old. And, as the old Democrats of antebellum America, liberals cling to their peculiar institutions with all the fervor and zeal as those slave holders.

Also, as the Southerners of yesterday used political power to keep and hold onto their peculiar institution of slavery, modern liberals also skew political power to keep their own institutions. Yet, as US history showed us in the mid-1800s, despite the political backing, an immoral institution is still immoral, no matter the political backing.

Here are a few examples of modern liberalism's peculiar institutions:

No other social issue defines modern liberalism more than abortion. It has grown to be the definitive issue around which liberalism rallies. Traditionally, liberals have renamed the institution in various ways, hiding its true meaning and purpose behind the monikers of "Pro-Choice" or "Women's Rights" or "Reproductive Rights."

How aborting babies came to be so intimately connected with modern liberalism dates back to the early 1900s with its roots in people such as the eugenicist Margaret Sanger. It wasn't until the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that state abortion laws in the US were declared unconstitutional and abortion became liberal's peculiar institution.

In one fell swoop, and with a Supreme Court decision that was every bit as convoluted as the antebellum Dred Scott case, modern liberalism succeeded in creating an institution as morally reprehensible as slavery. In essence, Roe v. Wade says that a woman's right to privacy (in this case to abort her fetus) is politically more expedient than the morally substantive inalienable right to life.

Yet modern liberals cling to their peculiar institution of abortion with all the fervor of moral imperative, derived from political and economic expediency.

Race Warfare
To say that racism doesn't exist in this country is to turn a blind eye to real racism. Racism is divisive, creating legal, social, and economic inequities across the country. Of course, liberalism helped expose the immorality of racism under the moral imperative established by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

How then, did racism become modern liberals' peculiar institution? Simply because of the liberal view that now filters all human transactions in terms of race, instead of viewing the broad range of interactions that humans actually have. In other words, modern liberals stereotype all interactions as racial interactions.

The idiocy of liberal stereotyping can easily be seen when applied to extreme cases. For example, when the Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested and, in turn, decried his arrest as racist. Then, when President Obama got involved to decry racism, and when it turned out that no racism was intended or implied in Gate's arrest, in such a case we see the vacuous stereotyping of liberalism's peculiar institution.

An even more absurd example stems from the current nation-wide protests against Obamacare. Liberal members of Congress and the White House have labeled protesters racist. Why? Ostensibly under the definition that anyone who disagrees with a black president, in any capacity or under any pretense, is a racist.

In another example, gay activists apply the term against anyone who disagrees with them about same sex marriage. The concept attempts to equate homosexuals in terms of race despite the absurdity of such an equation. Yet gay activists make the connection because, according to liberals, all human interactions are racial interactions.

What was once a serious description of a real division between Americans has been trivialized, becoming one of liberalism's peculiar institutions. Liberals fling the term "racist" around like mad carnival barkers attempting to hawk their wares, and by doing so, they cheapen and degrade any real or meaningful discussion about race itself.

Modern liberals also wrap themselves in the cloak of self-delusion, that they are the only ones who are qualified to talk about race (hence making racism liberals' peculiar institution). Yet, by clinging to race within political discourse, liberals perpetuate and extend the problem - in effect creating a form of class warfare in order to maintain the liberal agenda.

Liberals perpetuate the peculiar and immoral institution of racial divide to create political expediency, because without race warfare, liberalism would sputter and die.

Same Sex Marriage
One of the newest peculiar institutions on the liberal scene, the concept of same sex marriage, derives its basis out of denying the foundations of the established social institution of marriage based entirely on a disagreement with the moral imperative to preserve it. In other words, liberals claim a right for homosexuals to marry for no other reason than marriage is denied to them. The peculiar institution denies the historical fact of marriage in order to make male-female biology and marriage meaningless.

It seems inevitable, that liberalism which so desperately clings to race to create political tension, should invent new class struggles to maintain the status quo. Above all else, liberals must fight against the Establishment, whatever the Establishment is. In the case of same sex marriage, liberalism has defined the Establishment by the very nebulous term "the religious." The subject of attack - religion - is obvious. However, modern liberalism is the Establishment. Hence, other enemies, apart from government, must be sought, other causes must be taken up, liberalism must progress at all costs.

The problem arises from liberalism naming religion as immoral. By doing so, the peculiar institution of same sex marriage, spurred on by homosexual behavior, is set against the liberal imperative that religion be immoral. Liberals clash with Americans on this point because, by definition, liberalism claims anyone opposed to same sex marriage is an immoral and religious nut.

All the same, modern liberals cling to their peculiar institution of same sex marriage with all the fervor of a moral imperative, when, in reality, it derives from political and economic expediency to promote an immoral ideal.

In order for modern liberalism to survive, it must maintain its status quo. However, just as over 150 years ago Southern Democrats clung to their peculiar institution of slavery with all of the fervor of religious zealots, liberals also cling to their immoral, peculiar institutions of abortion, race warfare, and same sex marriage. Without these, liberalism faces the exposure and death of its underlying dogmas.

Yet, as we have seen in US history, even without slavery the South remained.

It's time for modern liberalism to give up its immoral, peculiar institutions in favor of the core values that made it successful in the first place. Instead, if liberalism maintains its peculiar institutions, it will find itself without the legitimacy it so desperately desires.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

The Courage to Stand Up for What Is Right

I am not easily impressed, but this weekend a group of high school students impressed me.

This past weekend, talented high school choir, orchestra, and band students from all over Arizona participated in a three-day event. Each student had competed for a regional performance and, after another audition and selection process, was chosen for the all state performance.

The students are all talented and capable musicians. Their abilities and dedication to the arts, despite schools cutting music funding right and left, is impressive enough.

But even more impressive was the courage they showed to stand up for what was right.

The three day event included extensive rehearsals, workshops, and guest performances from students at Arizona State University, where the event took place.

During one such performance, the students listened to ASU choirs and performance groups, including the Lyric Opera - a group of professors and students in musical theatre.

The Lyric Opera students performed a selection from the Broadway musical Rent - a popular musical best known for being "edgy" or, in other words, a musical featuring a lot of crude language and immoral situations. It is a modern retelling of Puccini's opera La Boheme. When it was performed on Broadway, the musical strove to give modern bohemians vicarious experiences with drugs, sex, homosexuality, sadomasochism, HIV, and good old-fashioned youth rebellion.

When the Lyric Opera students performed a selection from Rent, the director and students decided to improve the "edginess."

One young woman pulled her pants down and mooned the audience of high school teens.

The performers flipped off the audience of high school teens.

And do you know what?

The high school teens, hundreds of them, stood up and walked out of the performance.

That is impressive.

The immoral dogmas of the modern world would like us to believe that being "edgy" takes courage.

That is a lie.

It is easy to be immoral. It is easy to promote evil. It is easy to give in to the lowest, basest, most demeaning behavior humans can invent.

Standing up for what is right takes courage. Making a moral choice not to follow the seduction of depravity takes courage.

Hundreds of high school students, from all walks of life, religious or not, decided last weekend that they did not need to waste their time being "edgy." They also decided not to attend ASU, where their morals and courage would be disparaged by "edgy" philosophy and moral turpitude.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

The Snarky Files: Week Ending April 12, 2014

The Snarky Files. Snarky has several definitions. I prefer "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Tax Freedom Day 
This week, we celebrate support of our giganormous government by affirming that we have, indeed, paid our taxes. It's a ritual that we, at the Euripides household, honor by spending hours trying to get as much stolen property back from Washington, DC, as we possibly can.

So it was disconcerting to discover that Tax Freedom Day was pushed back another three days this year, falling on April 21st.

Tax Freedom Day is the day that the total country has made enough money in order to pay its tax burden for the year.

Yes, that's correct. It takes the people of the US about one-quarter of the entire year to pay our government to waste our money.

Presumably, the rest of the year we get to keep our own property.

Meanwhile, Far from the Border
The news media, by and large, ignores the war going on between the US and Mexico.

What war?

Why that would be the war with Mexican drug cartels which infiltrate into the US.

Outmanned and outgunned, local Sheriffs are alarmed by the drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnapping, and money laundering that Mexican drug cartels conduct in the US.

Mexican drug cartels now operate in over 3,000 US cities, recruiting gangs, former inmates, and teens to do their dirty work.

So, by all means members of Congress and Mr. Obama, let's welcome these illegals as full-fledged US citizens with open arms and brain-dead minds.

Here's a Photo of Hillary Clinton Cringing from a Thrown Shoe

Eric Holder Gets Testy
US Attorney General Eric "I'm Too Important to Be Bothered By Laws" Holder got testy this past week after being questioned by a congressional House committee for his many failures to uphold the law.

Calling the questioning “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive," Holder attempted to build up his character by tearing down Congress.

Holder has already been charged with contempt of Congress. He was threatened with another contempt charge.

Holder needs to be thrown into federal prison for his illegal involvement in "Fast and Furious" - a failed operation where the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives put guns into the hands of criminals in Mexico, then blamed US gun sellers for the ensuing fiasco.

Here's a Map Showing How Much Obamacare Premiums Have Risen among 27 Year-Olds

Range War
Cliven Bundy, a Nevada cattle rancher won a victory over federal officials who claimed that his cattle could not graze on public lands. The rancher claimed that his family had been using those lands since the 1870s and that he paid fees to allow his cattle to graze there.

In response, federal officials rounded up cattle and tasered several people, including Bundy's son.

The officials finally backed off.

One of Bundy's sisters described the reason behind the protest."It's about the freedom of America. We have to stand up and fight."

Jesus the Married Man
In what has surely angered Christians everywhere, a piece of papyrus dating back eleven hundred years was shown to be authentic.

It claims Jesus was married.

I have no problem with that idea, since Jesus was Jewish and was considered to be a rabbi. He must have been married.

Then again, I also think the Obama is not the Messiah, so what do I know?

Here's a Video Showing a Deranged Harry Reid Focusing His Wrath on the Koch Brothers

Sebelius Falls
Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, finally resigned, removing a key focal point in Republican efforts to get rid of the unpopular Obamacare.

Without Sebelius around, the Republicans don't have a clear target to rally those opposed to Obamacare.

It was a masterful move by the Obama administration - throw Sebelius under the bus in order to diffuse opposition to a law that most Americans really don't want.

Once again, Obama will do anything he can to maintain liberal power.

Connecticut Revolts
Dannel Malloy, governor of Connecticut signed law last year requiring residents to register "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" by the end of 2013.

Only 50,000 of the estimated 372,000 so-called assault weapons were registered (13%). Only 38,000 out of an estimated two million magazines were registered (.02%).

What does this tell us?

It may indicate that the people of Connecticut are ignorant of the law, or it may indicate that they are all criminals.

Or maybe, just maybe, it indicates that Americans don't trust government, especially when the government infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Ask Euripides: Common Liberal Attacks Against Conservatism

Whenever I speak truth against the lies of modern liberal dogma, inevitably I get accused of being the devil incarnate and accused of the most heinous of crimes, up to and including being the root cause of Hitler's Holocaust. (This, of course, despite the fact that my father was a US Army Air Corps navigator during WWII.)

Such trivialities don't matter to those indoctrinated into the Mysteries of Liberalism (they are a mystery to me at least). In response, here's a short list of things I've been accused of, posed in the form of a question (just like on Jeopardy!).

"I'll take liberal attacks for $100 Alex."

What's wrong with change?
Absolutely nothing. Conservatives aren't against changing the status quo. In fact, the whole point of modern liberalism is to stem the current status quo tax and spend government.

However, change, merely for the sake of change, ignoring the lessons of history and rejecting the ideas of great thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, is a dangerous way to run a government.

Isn't the Constitution outdated?
The US Constitution isn't the end-all of government systems. That's why the Framers created a means to amend it.

However, the ideas behind the Constitution - limited government and individual rights - are such great ideas that they will never become outdated, no matter how many Supreme Court justices say that we need to accept a "living Constitution."

A living Constitution is no constitution at all, because when we can interpret law according to the whims of a single judge, or attorney general, or president, then we lose a most valuable protection - the rule of law.

Without the rule of law, government becomes a dangerous and oppressive entity. How do we know this? Just ask the Framers of the Constitution, who fought against the tyranny of a government that no longer responded to its citizens.

Don't conservatives want us all to return to the Dark Ages?
Or the 1950s - whichever seems most evil to liberals.

The simple answer to this question is no. Conservatives have no intention of creating a society of Dark Age oppression. The exact opposite is true, and it's laughable to accuse modern conservatives of wanting to increase government control when modern liberalism is doing such a great job of it already.

Less government control, a return to individual rights, less government spending, those are hardly a call for a return to the Dark Ages.

Yes, that means that we should give up the liberal darlings of social welfare, especially since after 70 years of such policies, all that we've really accomplished is out-of-control spending and a statist government.

Government spends trillions and grows ever larger and threatens the very freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

You hate poor people and don't want them to have insurance.
Bzzzzzzz. Sorry, that wasn't in the form of a question, but I'll answer it anyway.

Of course conservatives don't hate poor people. Having struggled all my life to provide for my family, the accusation is ludicrous on a personal and on a theoretical level. In fact, I've lived several years without insurance because it was too expensive.

Now that Obamacare's kicked in, do you know what? My insurance is even more expensive than every and I cannot afford it.

I don't hate the poor. I hate stupid government programs that pretend to do good, while hurting the very people those in government have sworn to protect.

Don't you hate Obama because he's black?
No. I hate Obama's policies because they're hurting the Constitution and ignoring the rule of law.

That Obama is a black man is irrelevant - an observation that liberals cannot seem to grasp.

What's wrong with marriage equality?
Marriage equality sounds like a good ol' American value, doesn't it? Except that the forces behind the drive for marriage equality want anything but equality.

Gay activists want to us the force of US law to make it illegal to "discriminate" against gays, which basically means that they want to force all Americans to accept the gay lifestyle as normative.

It ain't gonna happen.

And making laws that force Americans to treat men's and women's physical differences the same is not equality. It's just silly.

When special interests use political force to create "equality," we've become a society that is anything but equal.

You're just a homophobe.
Bzzzzzzz. Sorry, that wasn't in the form of a question, but I'll answer it anyway.

I have absolutely no fear of homosexuals, so the term you use is inaccurate. I also don't hate homosexuals. Truth be told, I could care less about what homosexuals think.

Except when they try to force public opinion into acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle through the use of political force.

Any group which attempts to overthrow the rule of law in order to gain political power is a danger to the rule of law and to individual freedom.

Gay activists want to legally redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that is as old as history, merely to uphold their beliefs which are based on immoral premises.

The push for same sex marriage also threatens the 1st Amendment.

The push for same sex marriage is another, another force trying to destroy the family, the basic and fundamental unit of society.

In Conclusion
All of these questions, accusations, and attacks are delivered with vehement anger, gnashing of teeth, and with vitriol. The very people who promote "tolerance" demonstrate the most intolerant and divisive of behavior.

They are angry with me merely because I have spoken the truth.